The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1887-05-13
A sAo eLuNosa

a BAD eiUNDEa.
The St Louis Omclals, the Adams ExnPeoD
People aad All Concerned D;soovsr Thae
They Have No Jurisdictioa to Try Messes.
ger fotheringham tor Compli city In the
Great Express Robbery.
ST. Louis, May 4-Whcu the Fothering.-
ham case was resumed in the Criminal
Court this morning. H. C. Springle, con-
duct0r OF the robbed train, was called.
He testified last evening that he heard NO.
outcry from EotherinshAm until st. Clsis-
was reached: that on entering the car he.
found him firmly bound, but saw NO gag.
Fothcringham was cool and composed ;.
at first the messenger refused to say how
much was stolen; but aftcrward said il.
was about 0.O0O in bills.
Fotheringham was reluctant to report.
the matter to the company, the conductor
said. The stdeN Of the robbery told by
him to the c006ActOr. was repeated by
Fothcringham ut the Southern two weeks
later, without any variation.
Cross-examined this morning. Mr..
Springle SAID he knocked at the door Of
the express car at Mcncke. but received
no answer, and that aftcrward Fothcring-
ham told him that he heard the knock,
mings was holding q pistol to his head
FOthcringham, he said. was .'tied to siay,'-
his hands fastened first with handker-
chief. and then securely bound with stout
cords. Oh top Of the safe to which he was.
bound, q casting, weighing about thirty.
five pounds, was found, so fastened that
if FOthcringham moved it would fall andl
crush him.
At 81. Clair, whore Fothcringham was.
unbound, the witness told the telegraph
operator in the presence OF Fothcring-
ham to telegraph full particulars Of the
robbery. At The investigation held by
the express peop'c, the witness was i'm
pressed with the ida that the company
was seeking to connect HIM with the rob-
berry.
The witness was asked " from what he
had seen on the night Of the robbery and all
through The case he WAS not satisfied that.
Fothcringham WIS innocent and had so.
stated.
The state objected and the court ruled it.
Out.
After James Barrett, route "a. ,nt OF the.
express company, h,ri given his testimony.
Circuit Attorney Clover announced that
the State would stand on the count OF the
indictment charging him with taking the.
money, but not with receiving the stolen
property.
Judge Normile ordered the Sheriff to re-
move the jury, and after they retired he
asked Circuit Attorney Glover il the State,
had any other evidence except that the al
legged Offcnse was committed at Oak
Ridge, in st. Louis county.
Mr.. Clover said he had not, and claimed
jurisdiction simply from section 1906
Judge NOrmille said:
1.-THE view the court takes Of that.
statute is not a doubtful one. regret
that this case has gone so far
ut is an old principle of common Law,
that offenscs must be tried in the vicinage
where they were committed, and the
earliest jurics were cOniincI to eye W.T.
ncsses.
''The in lictmcnt in this case is evident
~ founded on the supposed validity of sec
ton 1906 which authorizes prosecution
Tor an ofcnse committed on q railroad car
in any county through which the car m ay'
run. This particular section has never
been passed upon, but section 1901 has
been declared unconstitutional, and they
are alike in principle, rs each declares
that Offenscs may be prosecuted in diff
fcrent county from where the offense was-
committed.
Since the money was not taken 1rOMS
the express car in the city of st. Louis nor
any part of it brought into this city by
the defendant, this court has no jurisdic-
tion. The case must be dismissed here
and transferred To st. Louis county"
The jury WAS then called in and Judge
NOrmile instructed them to acqut Foth-
sringham on the ground Of want Of juris-
diction.
Messrs. Harvey and johnson objected
and their exceptions were noted.
The jury retired and returned with the
verdict as directed by the court
Circuit Attorney Clover said there was
a second Indictment against the defend
ant covering the same ground, and he
would nolle pros. it
NJ. Clover then asked shc court to hold
Fotherihgham under bond to answer any
indictment that might b0 brought in st.
Louis County.
Judge Normile said he had no authority
to tax, such action, and the defendant
was discharged. Circuit Attorney Cfo-er
stating that he would call the attention CT
Prosecutor Warfeld, Of St LOUIS County,
to the matter